What you’re really afraid of is that more people are realizing that their guns don’t make them safer and are getting rid of them. It’s the notion that they think a mere $20 card is worth more than something you hold so precious that makes your heads explode. Every gun turned in represents one less person who will be likely to vote for the NRA’s satanic agenda.
Not true Bob.
Certainly. Because “evil death dealing scary thing” is just a hyperbolic phrase for “weapon.” Guns are weapons. They remain weapons whether you use them for war, murder, hunting, or home-defense. There would be no guns in the world, they never would have been invented, if their only use was target-competition.
People forget about their ability to start track events.
That’s over a year old poll, done by Gallup, who were nearly as bad as Ramussen in the 2012 election. The Gallup name isn’t what it used to be.
I don’t think that really matters. It shows a (modest) upward trend in gun ownership relative to Gallup’s own previous polls.
And, after the last election, we know how precise their polls are…
There are two worlds: pre-Newtown and post-Newtown. This was a pivot point in history just as 9/11 was.
No, it was said sarcastically. Sorry, that’s a personal verbal tic that doesn’t come across well in writing. Frankly, if Planned Parenthood was doing so well that they felt the need to file frivolous lawsuits like that, I’d assume they didn’t need my money anymore, and I’d be pissed that they hadn’t decided to drop prices even more or open more centers in areas without good, cheap gynecological services instead. Again, it’s not forcing anyone to give up their birth control, except possibly those in dire poverty, which I’ve already mentioned. And slippery slope arguments are dumb. If this is really what passes for dire attacks against your rights, I’d say your side has either already won or is so paranoid it’s not even worth arguing with you.
Granted. And, if giving it up means seriously screwing with someone’s basic life needs, then there should be a way to help those. The gun equivalent, I’d think, would be someone who uses their gun to keep their larder filled. If those people are, out of desperation, participating in buyback programs, then they need more help than having to sell their guns at the pawn shop instead of the police department. This lawsuit doesn’t help them. Otherwise, why do you care what people do with their guns, if they won’t starve without them? I guarantee you that I’m on my computer far more often than most gunowners use their guns, and my computer is more useful to me in more areas of my life than a gun is, but if I had to sell it to pay the bills, it’s not some grand destruction of my constitutional rights.
My local Safeway, turns out, will take prescription drugs to properly dispose of them. They also charge for the service and do not advertise it well. When it comes to services that are in the public good, that aren’t profitable for private business, and that aren’t adequately covered by charities, I tend to look for the government to fill in the gaps. That’s what makes me a liberal. I believe that government is basically another vehicle for people to come together and get shit done. It has its strengths and weaknesses, and it’s as prone to corruption as any other large conglomerate, but it is also a useful tool.
I honestly don’t understand what the problem is here unless you are imbuing guns with some special meaning. Do you have a problem with bulk trash pick-up days? Other people can use the furniture and stuff; I furnished my college apartment that way. What about disposal services for batteries and electronic goods? Municipal recycling? Libraries have to trash a lot of books because they don’t have room to store them while they are sold and no one wants to take them; are you upset about that? What is so special about guns that the idea of the government running disposal services for them is so scary?
That’s possible, but I suspect any large scale dumping of household guns is offset by people rushing out to buy them because of “gun grab” fearmongering.
OK. So where’s your evidence of the truth of your claim that more people are realizing that their guns don’t make them safer and are getting rid of them?
So an over under shotgun that is perfectly balanced for skeet and trap shooting and never will be used for anything other than shooting clay pigeons at the gun club has no purpose other than dealing death and being a weapon?
You are a fool.
Yes. In fact, gun sales are soaring plus the NRA membership is rapidly rising in response to the recent events.
My evidence is the overwhelming turnout at gun surrender events. Plus we’re talking about gun control. It was one of the third rails of politics, more and more politicians and pundits like Joe Scarborough are willing to consider reasonable controls.
Why are gun sales and NRA memberships so brisk? It’s just the same people who always owned guns buying more and more of them falling for the National Redneck Association sales pitches.
The percentage of households with guns has declined since 1973:
So if a shrinking percentage of households are stockpiling a larger number of guns, it does not mean gun ownership is becoming more popular.
Perhaps you forgot to include the link.
You know: to the studies, surveys, or other evidence that supports these assertions you’re making.
Ok, so you meant “no.” Well that kinda proves my point.
In this case the proposed lawsuit would not be frivolous. Anyway, it seems like you concede that if Planned Parenthood behaved as described earlier, you would not be outraged. Perhaps you might invent some reason to pretend you are outraged so you would not look inconsistent.
Why? Do you deny that a lot of major changes to law and policy started out small and grew from there?
So let’s see if I have this straight:
-
You are a liberal.
-
Therefore it’s okay for the government to get involved.
-
Therefore the government needs to be involved.
-
But that’s okay, because you are a liberal.
Does that pretty much sum up your position?
And in fact I do. First of all, guns involve an important moral and legal right. Second, firearm ownership is intensely political and there are a lot of forces directed towards ending private legal ownership of firearms in the United States.
That’s why I brought up the Planned Parenthood analogy, since I know that a lot of people value abortion rights just like I value gun rights.
If the local police were involved in distributing gift cards to discourage girls from getting abortions, somehow I doubt you would say “obviously the police need to be involved in this, so there’s no problem.”
The same thing that is special to liberals about abortion rights. It represents a right and there are forces directed towards banning it.
On that point, at least, he is correct. There won’t be any girls turning in stolen abortions at your hypothetical womb buyback.
No
No
(by the way, thanks for showing me a way to make a point without explanation or context. since you only wanted a yes or no answer, and feel that’s sufficient, then that’s all you get unless you actually realize there are additional points aside from a yes or no answer. and this explanation doesn’t count because its in parentheses)
No
Yes
No
Ass
Sometimes
Idiot
No
Maybe
Never
I agree it’s fair to say that to a certain extent, guns are sui generis, and the analogies to abortions, labor protests, and Occupy movements do not completely capture the dynamic in play when the right being exercised is found in the Second Amendment.